Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piedmont, Arizona

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont, Arizona[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are a bunch of places named "Piedmont" in Arizona, but all evidence suggests that this is just a rail point, as topos and aerials show nothing but a long passing siding. Even the ghosttowns.com entry all but admits this to be the case. Mangoe (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur on map Elinruby (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no straining to make this conclusion – a clear Keep. That is, Michael Crichton used Piedmont as a setting for his book (and subsequent movie), which makes Piedmont notable. This article serves to explain what Piedmont was and is. – S. Rich (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even ignoring WP:NOTINHERITED, all there is to say about Crichton's Piedmont can be said in a sentence; it's not even clear whether he pulled a name out of the air or picked a dot on the map. It is clear that the fictional Piedmont has nothing more to do with the real place than that both are in Arizona. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see which way the winds are blowing in this discussion. While Piedmont is not NOTABLE enough for its own WP article, its existence is WP:NOTEWORTHY and should be built into the Web. I suggest we do a WP:BLAR and make it a redirect to List_of_places_in_Arizona_(P)

Delete Fictional settings of books and movies are not automatically notable, and the article even indicates that it's not clear that the book was set in this Piedmont. Topo map just shows a label on the railroad, no evidence this was ever a (notable) popluated place or ghost town. Without substantive sources, there is no basis for an article. Reywas92^Talk 17:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We need a list of ghost train stations in Arizona article as a repository for a lot of these. They don't all need their own article but the fact that they existed and the coordinates is kind of good important historical info. jengod (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND, since we don't have any reliable sources saying the subject exists, which is an essential requirement if we're going to have an article on it. The sources cited are:

GNIS, which is not reliable for this purpose
[1], an entry in a mining database which doesn't support the claim anybody ever lived here
[2], a self-published (and therefore unreliable) webpage by someone who admits they know nothing about it.

While there are some sources which mention it as the setting for the Crichton novel, that doesn't mean it actually exists or that anybody ever lived here, and it would need to pass WP:GNG to claim notability on that basis. It would make far more sense to cover it in the article about the novel in any case. The relevant content of the article consists of unsourced comments, probably WP:OR, about the relationship of the novel to the real place. I don't think a redirect is a good idea because there are two plausible targets (The Andromeda Strain and List of places in Arizona (P)). Hut 8.5 19:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.